Author Topic: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission  (Read 52642 times)

Offline DatUser14

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 651
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #80 on: 02/14/2019 05:10 pm »
Tory Bruno responded to a thread on r/SpaceX about the protest: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aqbnza/spacex_protests_nasa_launch_contract_award/egfclfm/

[spoiler] ULA has, far and away, the best on time record in the industry.[/font][/size]The delays that launch providers sometimes experience after the rocket is on the pad are the most visible to the general public. These, however, are at the very end of a long span and are generally within the launch window.
Those who follow more closely will be familiar with the launch date promised at the time the launch vehicle is selected, which is typically 2 years out, vs when the payload is actually taken to space.
The industry average is a 3 month miss. Some provider’s average miss is measured in years. ULA’s is less than 2 weeks.
For some missions, being late will delay needed capability. For others, it impacts getting a commercial satellite to its revenue generating orbit.
For interplanetary missions, it can mean the difference between revolutionary science and not ever doing the mission at all. Some windows are years apart, some are decades, others are literally hundreds of years.
Lucy is an extraordinarily complex mission.
It will leave Earth with a very high energy: C3 > 29 km2/s2.
It will require extreme accuracy at injection in order to accomplish one of the most complex multi-body fly by’s ever attempted. A mission that will span 12 years.
After 2 Earth gravity assists, it will swing out through the main asteroid belt, picking up its first body. Then, continuing out to the Greek Camp of asteroids that precede Jupiter at its L4 point, Lucy will be lined up on 4 more asteroids (all of which are in motion relative to Jupiter’s orbit).
She will then swing all the way back to Earth for another gravity assist and be flung out to the Trojan Camp that follows Jupiter to observe a binary asteroid pair (an asteroid with its own moon)
This will take 12 years and extreme precision
Great animations: http://lucy.swri.edu/mission/Tour.html
It is, essentially, 7 difficult missions combined into a single, extremely complex one.
Lucy required years of planning and orbital analysis, as well as the construction of a single, unique, and complex spacecraft.
If the launch window of 21 days, which happens 2 years from now, is missed, the next opportunity, if NASA, choses to take it, will be decades later.
If successful, Lucy will observe carefully chosen primordial asteroids, left over from the formation of the solar system. She could fundamentally change our understanding of our home.
This is a very important mission.
[/spoiler]

edit: I asked on the forum feedback thread about spoiler tags, since the above quote is a bit long.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 05:58 pm by DatUser14 »
Titan IVB was a cool rocket

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #81 on: 02/14/2019 05:44 pm »
TESS was given schedule priority, it launched just short of four weeks after its initially planned launch date that was set years before the launch. That, for SpaceX, is a very good sign.

I disagree, that's not a good sign for interplanetary missions. That tells me, even being given schedule priority, they missed the initial planned launch date by nearly a month.
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #82 on: 02/14/2019 05:45 pm »
TESS was given schedule priority, it launched just short of four weeks after its initially planned launch date that was set years before the launch. That, for SpaceX, is a very good sign.

I disagree, that's not a good sign for interplanetary missions. That tells me, even being given schedule priority, they missed the initial planned launch date by nearly a month.

Perhaps, but TESS wasn't an interplanetary mission, with a launch period that would not recur for months or years.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #83 on: 02/14/2019 05:47 pm »
It will leave Earth with a very high energy: C3 > 29 km2/s2.

That makes more sense than > 51 km^2/s^2

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5917
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #84 on: 02/14/2019 05:48 pm »
TESS was given schedule priority, it launched just short of four weeks after its initially planned launch date that was set years before the launch. That, for SpaceX, is a very good sign.

I disagree, that's not a good sign for interplanetary missions. That tells me, even being given schedule priority, they missed the initial planned launch date by nearly a month.

Well, I should have said that it was actually their *first* mission with that kind of schedule priority and that CRS-14 took part of the time that was needed for TESS and that CRS-14 was also a NASA mission. Being their first mission with schedule priority and having another NASA mission in the way that was actually one of the drivers for the delay from mid-March to mid-April it is a very good sign. No other commercial company was in the way for that mission, just NASA itself.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #85 on: 02/14/2019 05:56 pm »
Nokia was once king, then it was Blackberry. Then Apple and Samsung arrived.

Yeah, sure, Apple is the low cost provider. You are providing an example where the more expensive, higher quality provider rightly won.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 06:09 pm by ncb1397 »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #86 on: 02/14/2019 06:09 pm »
It will leave Earth with a very high energy: C3 > 29 km2/s2.

That makes more sense than > 51 km^2/s^2
C3 can vary considerably throughout the window. The way Bruno phrased that suggests that 29 is the minimum energy on the best launch date. Other dates will require more.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #87 on: 02/14/2019 06:37 pm »

According to Wikipedia, since Atlas began development, it has suffered 18 total failures in addition to 2 Low Earth partial failures that would have been total failures if launching a planetary mission. They do not appear to have any better record than SpaceX,that had one launch failure and one test failure.

Atlas V and not just Atlas.    Atlas V has only the two partial failures.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 06:37 pm by Jim »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #88 on: 02/14/2019 06:41 pm »
The whole launch window/recycle ability/subcooled propellant thing is red herring, just look at the our wonderful launch log here, since the introduction of F9 v1.2, pretty much every flight launched within 20 days, starting with static fire

Static fire date is not relevant.  It is within 20 days of spacecraft planned launch date.

How many SpaceX launches had a well defined few-week-long window 18 months out?

Offline alang

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #89 on: 02/14/2019 06:57 pm »
I'm a largely uncritical fan of SpaceX.
I'm no engineer or scientist but I've read that  planetary mission scientists currently only launch perhaps two missions in a lifetime and losing one is like a bereavement.
I'd be cautious about choosing them.
Wishful thinking, but if SpaceX said upfront that they'd launch two identical spacecraft 70's style, for the price of one, then I'd be more sympathetic and it might stir those involved in planetary science to start taking more useful risks.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #90 on: 02/14/2019 07:12 pm »

Wishful thinking, but if SpaceX said upfront that they'd launch two identical spacecraft 70's style, for the price of one, then I'd be more sympathetic and it might stir those involved in planetary science to start taking more useful risks.

Who is going to pay for the second spacecraft

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #91 on: 02/14/2019 07:18 pm »
Other than sentiment, I don’t see the downside of SpaceX taking all of ULA’s business.

Nokia was once king, then it was Blackberry. Then Apple and Samsung arrived.

Innovate or die.

If SpaceX can do it cheaper and just as well, give it all to them. Until someone arrives who does it even better.

The problem with that sentiment is you are talking about a service that has national security implications for the US, Assured access to Space. 

It isn't unusual with the US government when it has needs for special services that it will not allow one contractor for those services to always win since if it keeps doing that, there is a concern that in the future it could become a sole-source contract.  They will go with a contract award of Best Value and Next Best Value.  It will not be a even split, something like 60/40 with Best Value getting 60% and Next Best Value getting 40%.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline alang

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #92 on: 02/14/2019 07:20 pm »

Wishful thinking, but if SpaceX said upfront that they'd launch two identical spacecraft 70's style, for the price of one, then I'd be more sympathetic and it might stir those involved in planetary science to start taking more useful risks.

Who is going to pay for the second spacecraft

The point is that it would provoke thought.
I don't know where most of the payload cost lies. I suspect that a lot of it comes from the preparation driven by having two chances in a lifetime.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #93 on: 02/14/2019 07:30 pm »
I suspect that a lot of it comes from the preparation driven by having two chances in a lifetime.

No, planetary scientists may only work on a few missions, but the rest of the industry (spacecraft designers and manufacturers, instrument designers and manufacturers, launch vehicle integrators, etc) can work many missions.  I for instance have worked MER, MRO,MSL, Juno, GRAIL, Mars 2020, PSP, O-Rex, Maven, etc.  The LM spacecraft group has a core that have worked Stardust, Genesis, MCO, MPL, Insight, GRAIL, Phoenix, Mars Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, MRO, Juno, MAVEN, O-Rex.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 07:30 pm by Jim »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #94 on: 02/14/2019 07:55 pm »
I can't speak to what's best for this mission but at some point, we should be able to entrust these types of missions to more than one provider.

One reason ULA's record is so good is the amount of money they were afforded for those assurances. The whole point of SpaceX was to offer the same kinds of services for a step change in price while still maintaining mission assurance. It appears NASA does not believe SpaceX is able to do so yet.

Ok, so if nothing else, maybe SpaceX will get additional clarity as to exactly what they'll need to do to achieve the following to an acceptable degree:

1. Schedule Certainty
2. Injection Accuracy (extreme)
« Last Edit: 02/14/2019 08:10 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Joffan

Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #95 on: 02/14/2019 09:20 pm »
Ok, so if nothing else, maybe SpaceX will get additional clarity as to exactly what they'll need to do to achieve the following to an acceptable degree:

1. Schedule Certainty
2. Injection Accuracy (extreme)
... although I'd hope that even without any formal complaint process, NASA would be willing to brief the losing bidder(s), at least in this context, on why they not selected.  But the formal complaint may force a little extra clarity that could be glossed over otherwise.
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #96 on: 02/14/2019 09:23 pm »
Tory Bruno made a response on Reddit about this.

https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aqbnza/spacex_protests_nasa_launch_contract_award/egfclfm/?context=1

EDIT: And it was already copied at the top of this page, and I even read it there. Whoops.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 02:46 am by JEF_300 »
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5917
  • Likes Given: 945

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #98 on: 02/15/2019 12:39 am »
I think it is petty of SpaceX to challenge this one. There are winners and losers in all bid projects. It's not like SpaceX is about to go out of business if they don't get it.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX bid protest for NASA Lucy mission
« Reply #99 on: 02/15/2019 01:14 am »
The whole launch window/recycle ability/subcooled propellant thing is red herring, just look at the our wonderful launch log here, since the introduction of F9 v1.2, pretty much every flight launched within 20 days, starting with static fire

Static fire date is not relevant.  It is within 20 days of spacecraft planned launch date.

Using static fire date makes the argument more robust, it doesn't matter it is within 20 days of planned launch date.

Your argument: Since Falcon 9 couldn't do multiple launch attempt per day due to subcooled propellant, it can only get one attempt per day max, any scrub will postpone the launch to next day, multiple scrubs risk postponing launch date over 20 days launch window.

My rebuttal: From past history, the date difference between first attempt at static fire and final launch date is usually less than 20 days, this means the date difference between first launch attempt date and final launch date is usually much less than 20 days, due to the simple fact first launch attempt will happen after static fire. So history tells us any delay caused by scrubs would not exceed the 20 days launch window.

Let's put some real numbers behind this: The dates in attached Excel comes from the launch log page, I excluded Amos-6 and FH-1. What we have is the following:
1. Average days between first launch attempt and successful launch: 3 days
2. 91% of the missions launched within 7 days of first launch attempt
3. 95% of the missions launched within 10 days of first launch attempt
4. The two biggest delays are Zuma and SSO-A, both are delayed due to technical issues not related to subcooled propellant

So even if you put static fire inside the 20 days launch window, as long as SpaceX has 7 to 10 days from first launch attempt to the end of the window, they have 90~95% chance of launching within the window. And the lack of multiple launch attempt per day capability is simply not a factor when it comes to launch within 20 days window.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 01:24 am by su27k »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1